GREEN PAPER Less bureaucracy for citizens:  promoting free movement of public documents and  recognition of the effects of civil status records
Date: 2010-12-14
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: European citizenship, civil law, fundamental rights, judicial cooperation, jurisdiction, matrimonial law, private international law, social rights, technical barriers to trade

EN

EN 

   EN 

 
EUROPEAN COMMISSION 

Brussels, 15.12.2010 
COM(2010) 747 final 

GREEN PAPER 

Less bureaucracy for citizens: 

promoting free movement of public documents and  
recognition of the effects of civil status records  

EN 

   EN 

 
 
 
1. 

INTRODUCTION 

The mobility of European citizens is a practical reality, evidenced in particular by the fact that 
some  12  million  people  study,  work  or  live  in  a  Member  State  of  which  they  are  not 
nationals1.  This  mobility  is  facilitated  by  the  rights  attached  to  citizenship  of  the 
European Union:  in  particular  the  right  to  freedom  of  movement  and,  more  generally,  the 
right to be treated like a national in the Member State of residence. These rights are enshrined 
in primary EU law and implemented by means of secondary legislation.  

However,  as  stated  in  the  2010  EU  report  on  citizenship  adopted  by  the  Commission  on 
27 October 20102, European citizens are still confronted each day with many obstacles to the 
exercise of these rights.  

One  reason  for  these  problems  is  that  citizens  are  required  to  present  public  records  to  the 
authorities  of  another  Member  State  in  order  to  provide  the  proof  needed  to  benefit  from  a 
right or to comply with an obligation.  

These documents can vary considerably. They can be administrative documents, notarial acts 
such  as  property  deeds,  civil  status  records  such  as  birth  or  marriage  certificates, 
miscellaneous contracts or court rulings.  

Very  often  these  documents  are  not  accepted  by  the  authorities  of  a  Member  State  without 
bureaucratic formalities that are cumbersome for citizens. 

Citizens are then faced with very specific questions, the answers to which are often uncertain. 
Which  authorities  are  competent  when  it  comes  to  complying  with  such  formalities?  How 
much do such formalities cost? Must people appear in person? Will the necessary formalities 
be completed within a reasonable period of time? Will documents need to be translated? 

The  uncertainty  surrounding  the  answers  to  these  questions  is  a  source  of  frustration  and 
irritation, and is not conducive to achieving a Europe of citizens. 

Moreover, civil status records raise a question of quite a different magnitude concerning not 
the actual documents themselves, but their effects. 

Civil status records used by a Member State's authorities to record the main events governing 
people's  status  (birth,  marriage,  death)  do  not  necessarily  have  an  effect  in  another 
Member State. Each Member State applies its own rules in this respect, and they vary from 
one  State  to  another.  For  example,  paternal  filiation  established  in  one  Member  State  with 
respect  to  a  child  born  there  will  not  necessarily  be  recognised  in  another  Member  State 
because of the difference in national rules applicable to the matter. 

1 

2 

Further  proof  of  this  fact  is  the  number  of  marriages  and  divorces  recorded  in  the  EU:  by  way  of 
example,  out  of  a  total  of  roughly  122  million  marriages,  some  16  million  (13%)  have  a  crossborder 
dimension. 
COM(2010) 603 final, EU Citizenship Report 2010 – Dismantling the obstacles to EU citizens' rights. 

EN 

   EN 

 
 
                                                 
In response to these concerns, the Commission is launching, by means of this Green Paper, a 
broad consultation on matters relating to freedom of movement of public documents (Part 3) 
and recognition of the effects of civil status records (Part 4). The consultation aims to gather 
contributions  from  interested  parties  and  the  general  public  with  a  view  to  developing  EU 
policy in these areas together with the relevant legislative proposals. 

2. 

BACKGROUND  

In  2004,  the  Commission  underlined  the  importance  of  facilitating  recognition  of  different 
types of documents and mutual recognition of civil status3. 

To  this  end  two  studies  were  published  by  the  Commission4  in  2007  and  2008  on  the 
problems  encountered  by  citizens  as  a  result  of  the  requirement  to  legalise  documents  used 
between Member States and on the problems relating to civil status records. 

Within the framework of the Stockholm programme5 the Council has asked the Commission 
to  pursue  the  work  on  the  follow-up  to  be  given  to  these  studies  in  order  to  ensure  full 
exercise of the right to freedom of movement. 

In  this  connection,  two  legislative  proposals  are  envisaged  in  the  Stockholm  programme 
action plan. 

Scheduled for 2013, these proposals will concern 

•  free  movement  of  documents  by  eliminating  legalisation  formalities  between 

Member States and 

•  recognition  of  the  effects  of  certain  civil  status  records  (for  instance  relating  to 
filiation, adoption, names), so that legal status granted in one Member State can 
be recognised and have the same legal consequences in another. 

The European Parliament has already stated on several occasions6 that it is  in favour of the 
recognition  of  public  documents  and  civil  status  records,  the  last  time  being  in 
November 20107. 

3. 

FREE MOVEMENT OF PUBLIC DOCUMENTS 

3.1. 

Issues 

The Eurobarometer results on civil justice dating from October 2010 show that three-quarters 
of  EU  citizens  (73%)  consider  that  measures  should  be  taken  to  facilitate  the  movement  of 
public documents between Member States. 

3 

4 
5 

6 
7 

COM(2004)  401  final,  Communication  "Area  of  Freedom,  Security  and  Justice:  assessment  of  the 
Tampere programme and future orientations", p. 11. 
The results are available at http://ec.europa.eu/civiljustice/publications/publications_en.htm  
The Stockholm Programme — An open and secure Europe serving and protecting citizens, OJ C 115, 
4.5.2010, p. 1. 
Resolution with recommendations to the Commission on the European Authentic Act, December 2008. 
Report on civil law, commercial law, family law and private international law components of the action 
plan implementing the Stockholm Programme of 22 November 2010. 

EN 

   EN 

 
                                                 
European citizens who move to a Member State other than the one of origin are faced with all 
kinds of bureaucracy involving requests that public documents be presented, for instance the 
birth certificate of a child, or proof of nationality or of a parental or family relationship.  

The same applies to European citizens returning to their Member State of origin after a period 
in  a  host  Member  State.  They  encounter  the  same  type  of  problems  when  it  comes  to 
providing evidence of life events which occurred in the host Member State. 

The  Commission  would  like  to  launch  a  debate  on  all  the  public  documents  that  require 
administrative  formalities in  order to be used  outside  the Member  State in which they were 
issued. These formalities include proof of authenticity or a certified translation.  

Public  documents  vary  considerably  and  cover  all  the  official  records  drawn  up  by  a 
Member State  authority.  Examples  include  administrative  documents  such  as  diplomas  or 
patents;  notarial  acts  such  as  sales  deeds  for  property  and  marriage  contracts;  civil  status 
records  such  as  birth,  marriage  or  death  certificates;  plus  judicial  documents  such  as  court 
rulings or documents issued by a court.  

The common function of all these documents is to establish evidence of facts recorded by an 
authority. In most cases they must be produced to obtain access to a right, to receive a social 
service or to comply with a tax obligation.  

Administrative formalities are necessary to authenticate public documents so that they can be 
used outside the Member State where they have been issued. These formalities are a means of 
preventing fraud. They concern for example the authenticity of the signature and the capacity 
in which the person signing the document has acted.  

The  traditional  way  of  authenticating  public  documents  designed  for  use  abroad  is 
legalisation.  Legalisation  consists  of  a  chain  of  individual  authentication  procedures  for  a 
document.  In  the  ordinary  legalisation  procedure,  a  document  must  be  legalised  by  the 
competent  authorities  of  the  Member  State  which  issued  it  and  then  by  the  embassy  or 
consulate of the Member State in which it will be used. The legalisation process is often slow 
and costly because of the number of authorities involved8. 

Another  formality,  which  simplifies  the  traditional  legalisation  process,  consists  of  the 
provision by the State issuing the document of an authentication certificate called an apostille. 
The apostille has the same objective as legalisation but involves a simplified procedure. An 
apostille  is  provided  by  the  competent  authorities  only  of  the  State  which  issued  the 
document.  Intervention  by  the  authorities  of  the  Member  State  in  which  the  document  is 
presented is no longer necessary.  

However, although the apostille facilitates the movement of public documents compared with 
the legalisation procedure, it also requires administrative steps and involves some loss of time 
and a quite considerable cost which varies greatly from one Member State to another9.  

8 

9 

The amount and scale of the fee involved differ widely from one Member State to another (equal to or 
lower than EUR 20 in some Member States, variable in others, depending on the document; the fee can 
amount to up to EUR 50). 
The  apostille  also  costs  money:  a  fee  must  be  paid  in  a  number  of  Member  States.  which  varies 
considerably  from  one  to  another.  In  some,  the  apostille  is  provided  free  of  charge  or  for  less  than 
EUR 5, while in others it can cost up to EUR 50.  

EN 

   EN 

 
                                                 
During the above-mentioned Eurobarometer survey on civil justice, citizens were asked about 
all  the  possible  formalities  which  they  had  had  to  fulfil  when  presenting  documents  in  a 
Member  State  other  than  the  one  which  had  issued  the  document.  Six  out  of  every  ten 
questioned replied that they had had to fulfil several formalities when presenting a document 
in the Member State of residence. These included translation (26%), legalisation (24%), and 
producing an apostille (16%) or a certified copy (19%). 

Another  problem  is  that  some  Member  States  can  require  documents  which  do  not  always 
exist  in  the  citizen's  Member  State  of  origin.  A  certificate  of  no  impediment  is  a  good 
example of this. 

A  Cypriot  citizen  living  in  Finland  wants  to  marry  a  Finnish  citizen,  but  he  is  required  to 
produce a certificate of no impediment, which does not exist in Cypriot law. He is thus unable 
to produce this document in his Member State of residence and the only solution appears to 
be to refer the matter to the judicial authorities of the Member State of residence. 

But  is  such  a  solution  satisfactory  for  citizens?  Referring  cases  to  courts  is  not  easy  and 
involves an investment in terms of time and money. Getting married in a Member State other 
than the one of origin should be easy, not a source of worry for the future spouses. 

All of these formalities make freedom of movement less attractive for European citizens and 
can even prevent them from exercising their rights fully. 

3.2. 

Legal framework 

At  the  moment,  administrative  formalities  such  as  legalisation  of  public  documents  and  the 
apostille  in  EU  Member  States  are  characterised  by  a  legal  framework  that  is  fragmented 
because  it  is  based  on  several  sources:  national  laws  that  differ  considerably  from  one 
another;  a  number  of  international  multilateral  and  bilateral  conventions  which  have  been 
ratified by a varied and limited number of countries and which are unsuitable when it comes 
to  providing  the  solutions  needed  to  ensure  the  free  movement  of  Europeans;  fragmented 
EU law which deals only with certain limited aspects of the matters raised. 

The  result  is  a  lack  of  clarity  and  regulation  which  does  not  provide  the  legal  certainty 
European citizens need to cope with matters that have a direct impact on their everyday lives. 

The principle whereby public documents must be legalised by the competent authority of the 
Member  State  in  which  the  document  is  issued  or  be  the  subject  of  an  apostille  by  the 
authority  of  the  Member  State  of  origin  is  accompanied  by  exceptions  set  out  in  the 
international conventions or in EU law. 

It is difficult for citizens to know which exceptions could be applied to their own situations. 

Several  conventions  can  be  quoted  to  demonstrate  just  how  many  international  rules  exist. 
Some of these conventions concern public documents in the broad meaning of the term, while 
others concern a specific type of document such as civil status records or certificates issued by 
diplomatic or consular officials. 

EN 

   EN 

 
The 1961 Hague Convention abolishes the requirement of legalisation for the foreign public 
documents set out in Article 1, replacing this with the apostille10. All EU Member States are 
parties  to  this  Convention,  as  are  a  number  of  non-EU  countries.  It  applies  to  public 
documents,  in  other  words  administrative  documents,  notarial  acts,  official  certificates  and 
documents emanating from a court or tribunal, but not to documents executed by diplomatic 
and consular authorities. 

In the case of a document issued by a diplomatic or consular authority, the 1968 Council of 
Europe  Convention  may  be  applied.  It  abolishes  the  legalisation  of  documents  executed  by 
diplomatic  or  consular  agents.  However,  not  all  European  citizens  can  benefit  from  this 
Convention as only fifteen Member States are contracting parties to it. 

In  order  to  promote  international  cooperation  on  civil  status  records  and  improve  the 
functioning  of  civil  status  authorities,  an  intergovernmental  organisation,  the  International 
Commission on Civil Status (CIEC) was set up in 1949 by five founding members11. Twelve 
EU  Member  States  are  now  members  of  this  organisation12.It  plays  an  important  role,  in 
particular  in  the  development  of  international  conventions  for  ratification  by  countries. 
Several Conventions concern the legalisation of civil status records: the 1957 Convention on 
the issue free of charge and exemption from legalisation of copies of civil status records, the 
1976 Convention on the issue of multilingual extracts from civil status records, and the 1977 
Convention on the exemption from legalisation of certain records and documents13. 

EU  law  itself  contains  several  provisions  which  completely  abolish  legalisation  between 
Member States. 
The 1987 Convention14 completely abolishes legalisation for several categories of documents: 
documents emanating from an authority or official, including a public ministry, a clerk of a 
court  or  a  process-server,  administrative  documents,  notarial  acts,  official  certificates,  in 
particular  official  certificates  which  are  placed  on  documents  signed  by  persons  in  their 
private  capacity,  and  documents  executed  by  diplomatic  or  consular  agents.  However,  this 
Convention  has  been  ratified  by  only  a  very  small  number  of  Member  States  and  has  not 
therefore entered into force, except with regard to six of them15, which have decided to apply 
it provisionally in their mutual relations. 

Some  instruments  adopted  by  the  EU  on  judicial  cooperation  in  civil  matters,  in  particular 
Regulations  (EC)  No  44/2001  and  (EC)  No  2201/2003,  also  provide  for  the  abolition  of 
legalisation for documents coming within their scope16. 

10 

11 
12 

13 
14 

15 
16 

Convention  of  5  October  1961  abolishing  the  requirement  of  legalisation  for  documents  by  foreign 
authorities: http://www.hcch.net/index_en.php?act=conventions.text&cid=41. It does not apply to documents 
executed  by  diplomatic  or  consular  agents  or  to  administrative  documents  dealing  directly  with 
commercial or customs operations. The apostille is defined in Articles 4 and 5 of the Convention. 
The five founding members are Belgium, France, Luxembourg, the Netherlands and Switzerland. 
CIEC website: http://www.ciec1.org/. In addition to the above four EU Member States who are founding 
members  of  the  CIEC:  Germany,  Greece,  Italy,  Portugal,  Spain,  Poland,  the  United  Kingdom  and 
Hungary. 
Conventions No 2, 16 and 17.  
Convention  of  25  May  1987  abolishing  the  legalisation  of  documents  in  the  Member  States  of  the 
European Communities. 
The six Member States are Belgium, Denmark, France, Italy, Ireland and Latvia.  
The provisions in question are: Article 56 of Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 on jurisdiction and 
the  recognition  and  enforcement  of  judgments  in civil  and  commercial  matters,  and  Article  52  of 
Council  Regulation (EC)  No 2201/2003  of 27  November  2003  concerning  jurisdiction  and  the 

EN 

   EN 

 
                                                 
3.3. 

a) 

Possible solutions to facilitate the free movement of public documents between 
Member States 

The  abolition  of  administrative  formalities  for  the  authentication  of  public 
documents 

The  administrative  formalities  relating  to  the  presentation  of  public  documents,  originally 
based  on  consular  and  intergovernmental  practices,  are  still  causing  problems  for  European 
citizens  and  no  longer  meet  the  requirements  or  correspond  to  the  state  of  development  of 
contemporary society, in particular in an area of common justice.  

The  need  for  these  formalities,  which  are  not  suitable  for  relations  between  Member  States 
based on mutual trust or for increased mobility of citizens, can legitimately be questioned. 

In 1997, the European Union Court of Justice indicated the path that should be followed. In 
the Dafeki17 case between a Greek national working in Germany and the pension fund of that 
Member  State,  the  recognition  of  documents  issued  in  one  Member  State  and  presented  in 
another in a professional context was affirmed by the Court. In this judgment, the Court found 
that a Member State's authorities must accept certificates and analogous documents relative to 
personal status  issued  by  the competent  authorities of  the other Member  States, unless their 
accuracy  is  seriously  undermined  by  concrete  evidence  relating  to  the  individual  case  in 
question. 

It is time to consider abolishing the apostille and legalisation for all public documents in order 
to ensure that they can circulate freely throughout the EU. 

This  could  cover  all  public  documents;  a  sectoral  approach  might  not  produce  sufficient 
results. The apostille might be abolished as well as legalisation. 

In  practice,  the  abolition  of  these  formalities  would  mean  that  citizens  could  present  an 
original  document  issued  by  a  Member  State's  authorities,  without  having  to  take  any 
additional steps, as though they were in the same Member State. 

The  Commission  therefore  proposes  that  thought  be  given  to  abolishing  all  these  obsolete 
formalities,  and  that  a  modern,  uniform  European  legislative  framework  be  introduced  that 
takes account of the reality of crossborder situations. 

Question 1 Do you think that the abolition of administrative formalities such as legalisation 
and the apostille would solve the problems encountered by citizens? 

b) 

Cooperation between the competent national authorities 

The abolition of administrative formalities could be accompanied by cooperation between the 
competent national authorities. 

recognition  and  enforcement  of  judgments  in  matrimonial  matters  and  the  matters  of  parental 
responsibility, repealing Regulation (EC) No 1347/2000. 
Case C-336/94 Eftalia Dafeki v Landesversicherungsanstalt [1997] ECR I-06761, paragraph 19. 

17 

EN 

   EN 

 
                                                                                                                                                         
Civil registrars in certain Member States currently engage in administrative cooperation on an 
informal  basis  and  on  the  basis  of  the  CIEC  Conventions18,  something  which  could  be 
developed. 

In the event of serious doubt about the authenticity of a document or if a document does not 
exist  in  a  Member  State,  the  competent  national  authorities  could  exchange  the  necessary 
information and find an appropriate solution.  

This  exchange  of  information  should  also  allow  the  civil  registrar  of  the  Member  State  of 
origin  of  a  person  to  be  informed  of  the  fact  that  a  record  concerning  this  person  has  been 
made  in  another  Member  State.  This  would  also  be  useful  in  terms  of  updating  civil  status 
records.  A  central  registration  point  could  also  be  envisaged  to  record  civil  status  events 
occurring  in  Member  States  other  than  the  citizen's  Member  State  of  origin.  This  grouping 
together of data would facilitate the issuing and updating of certificates. 

Such applications could be implemented by using suitable electronic means19.  

The projects carried out and results achieved in the context of online justice (e-Justice) could 
contribute to this exchange of information. The e-Justice portal could inform citizens of the 
existence of civil status records and their legal implications (for instance, the need to obtain a 
death  certificate  from  the  competent  authority  before  asking  a  court  for  an  inheritance 
certificate). Arrangements could also be made to allow citizens to apply for and obtain a civil 
status record online using a secure system. 

Moreover, given the very diverse administrative structures in the Member States, it would be 
useful to inform citizens more systematically as to which authorities are competent for entries 
in  civil  registers  and  the  issuing  of  certificates.  In  this  connection,  the  Commission  has 
announced20  the  transformation  of  the  "Your  Europe"  portal  into  a  one-stop-shop  for 
information  on  the  rights  of  citizens  and  companies  in  the  European  Union,  which  is  user-
friendly and easily accessible21. 

Question  2  Should  closer  cooperation  between  Member  States'  authorities  be  envisaged,  in 
particular as regards civil status records, and if so, in what electronic form?  

18 

19 

20 

21 

See  in  particular  Conventions  No  3,  8  and  26.  According  to  Convention  No  3,  when  civil  registrars 
make a record of marriage, they must give notice of this to the civil registrar for the place of birth of 
each  one  of  the  spouses,  using  a  standard  form.  This  Convention  is  in  force  in  eleven  Contracting 
States, six of which are EU Member States. The EU Members are Austria, Belgium, France, Germany, 
Italy, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Poland, Portugal and Spain. 
The Internal Market Information System (IMI), currently used for the exchange of information between 
authorities in the field of professional qualifications and services, could prove to be a suitable electronic 
tool  to  improve  cooperation  between  the  competent  Member  State  authorities  and  could  also  prevent 
recourse  to  requests  for  the  translation  of  documents.  See  http://ec.europa.eu/imi-net.  In  addition,  the 
"CIEC platform" project co-financed by the Commission could form a very useful basis for the future. 
It involves the development and use of electronic means in relation to judicial matters and, in particular, 
the  organisation  of  a  network  of  civil  registrars  which  will  be  of  great  benefit  to  citizens.  The 
CIEC platform  also  underpins  the  best  practices  developed  in  the  context  of  intergovernmental 
cooperation. 
COM(2010)  603  final,  cited  above,  and  COM(2010)  608  final,  Communication,  "Towards  a  Single 
Market Act - For a highly competitive social market economy". 
See http://ec.europa.eu/youreurope. 

EN 

   EN 

 
                                                 
Question  3  What  do  you  think  about  the  registration  of  a  person's  civil  status  events  in  a 
single place, in a single Member State? Which place would be the most appropriate: place of 
birth, Member State of nationality or Member State of residence? 

Question  4  Do  you  think  that  it  would  be  useful  to  publish  the  list  of  national  authorities 
competent to deal with civil status matters or the contact details of one information point in 
each Member State?  

c) 

Limiting translations of public documents 

In  parallel  with  the  administrative  formalities  such  as  legalisation  and  the  apostille,  the 
translation of a public document issued by another Member State is another procedure citizens 
may  have  to  deal  with.  Just  like  the  abovementioned  administrative  formalities,  translation 
also represents a cost in terms of time and money22. 

Optional  standard  forms,  at  least  for  the  most  common  public  documents  (for  example  a 
declaration of the loss or theft of identity papers or a wallet), could be introduced in a number 
of administrative sectors in order to cope with translation requests and avoid costs.  

The standard forms could be based on the multilingual forms produced by the CIEC. These 
forms are very successful: the advantage is that there is no need to translate the certificate in 
the country of destination23.  

Question 5 What solutions do you recommend in order to avoid or at least limit the need for 

translation? 

d) The European civil status certificate 

European driving licences and passports already exist. A European certificate of inheritance 
has  been  proposed  by  the  Commission.  Thought  might  be  given  to  introducing  a  European 
civil status certificate. 

This would exist alongside Member States' national civil status records. It would be optional, 
not  compulsory.  Citizens  could  continue  to  ask  for  a  national  certificate.  The  European 
certificate would not therefore replace Member States' civil status certificates.  

A couple consisting of partners of German and Spanish nationality settle in Spain with their 
child.  The  parents  need  the  child's  birth  certificate  in  order  to  apply  for  family  allowances 
and  to  register  the  child  in  a  Spanish  school.  The  parents  could  ask  the  civil  registrar  in 
Germany (Member State of birth) to issue a European birth certificate in order to present it to 
the  competent  authorities  in  Spain.  The  certificate  could  be  issued  in  Spanish.  When 
presenting it to the Spanish authorities, the certificate would not have to be translated, which 
would  avoid  the  considerable  translation  costs.  The  parents  could  also  ask  for  a  national 
birth  certificate,  in  other  words  a  German  certificate.  In  this  case,  the  Spanish  authorities 
would probably ask for it to be translated.  

It should also be possible to use the certificate in the Member State where it was issued.  

22 
23 

The average cost of translating a simple document can range from EUR 30 to EUR 150.  
Convention No 16 is in force in 20 countries, including 12 EU Member States.  

EN 

   EN 

 
                                                 
The  parents  could  also  use  the  European  certificate  for  any  administrative  formalities  in 
Germany, which would avoid further procedures involving the civil registrar.  

At the moment, the information given on civil status certificates differs considerably from one 
Member  State  to  another.  For  instance,  over  forty  different  details  are  given  on  Member 
States' birth certificates. These details are not given in every country. Such differences cause 
problems for civil registrars faced with details that are unknown in their legal systems. As a 
result  of  these  differences,  civil  registrars  often  have  to  request  additional  information  and 
citizens face additional problems, such as loss of time.  

As  well  as  the  content,  the  form  differs  from  one  Member  State  to  another.  The  variety  of 
forms causes problems in understanding and identifying documents, for both authorities and 
citizens, in particular when the language is not known. 

The  format  of  the  certificate  and  the  information  given  on  it  must  be  standardised  using  a 
single support, the European certificate. This would greatly facilitate the understanding of the 
civil  status  data  shown  and  would  prevent  the  kind  of  questions  that  are  raised  about  the 
details on national certificates that are unknown in the Member State where the certificate is 
presented. 

Question 6 What kind of civil status certificates could be the subject of a European 
civil status certificate? Which details should be mentioned on such a certificate? 

4. 

MUTUAL RECOGNITION OF THE EFFECTS OF CIVIL STATUS RECORDS 

4.1. 

Issues 

Of  all  public  documents,  civil  status  records  give  rise  to  a  specific  problem  linked  to  their 
effects.  

Civil status, for which each Member State has developed its own concept, based for instance 
on its history, culture and legal system, makes it possible to find out the status of a person and 
determine  his  or  her  position  in  society.  It  forms  the  basis  of  his  or  her  legal  status.  Civil 
status records are records executed by an authority in order to record the life events of each 
citizen such as birth, filiation, adoption, marriage, recognition of paternity, death and also a 
surname change following marriage, divorce, a registered partnership, recognition, change of 
sex or adoption. 

In  a  crossborder  situation,  the  main  question  is  whether  a  legal  situation  recorded  in  a  civil 
status record in one Member State will be recognised in another. 

A  French  couple  married  for  three  years  move  to  Denmark.  They  will  live  in 
Denmark  for  four  years  for  professional  reasons.  After  living  together  for  several 
years,  their  first  child  is  born.  In  attributing  a  surname  to  a  child,  the  Danish 
authorities apply the law of Denmark, the child's and the parents' Member State of 
residence.  On  the  family's  return  to  France,  the  French  authorities  refused  to 
recognise the name attributed to the child according to the rules laid down in Danish 
law. This situation will create legal uncertainty for the child as he or she will not be 
identified in the same way in Denmark and in France, which will have an impact on 
the exercise of the right to free movement. 

EN 

   EN 

 
The attribution of surnames is a basic element in a person's identification, the rules of which 
are influenced by historical, religious, linguistic and cultural factors, which differ widely from 
one  Member  State  to  another.  The  problems  encountered  by  citizens  as  a  result  of  the 
difference in national rules on attributing names are illustrated in the case-law of the Court of 
Justice24, which describes the serious drawbacks that differences in the attribution of family 
names can have for individuals in their professional and private lives25. 

It should be possible to guarantee the continuity and permanence of a civil status situation to 
all European citizens exercising their right of freedom of movement. In deciding to cross the 
border of a Member State to go and live, work or study in another Member State, the legal 
status acquired by the citizen in the first Member State (for instance change of surname for a 
married woman who has legally adopted her husband's surname) should not be questioned by 
the authorities of the second Member State since this would constitute a hindrance and source 
of objective problems hampering the exercise of citizens' rights. 

The  second  question  which  arises  is  whether  –  in  a  crossborder  case  –  the  legal  status 
recorded in a civil status record can produce the civil effects connected with the situation. 

Two  citizens,  one  of  Swedish  nationality  and  the  other  of  German  nationality,  are 
living  together  in  Finland  and  are  not  married.  After  living  together  for  several 
years, their first child is born. How will the Finnish authorities in the Member State 
of  residence  establish  the  filiation  of  the  child,  in  other  words  the  family  relations 
binding this child to the biological parents? What rules will the Finnish authorities 
apply  to  the  establishment  of  filiation?  Will  it  be  Swedish  law,  the  law  of  the 
Member State  of  origin  of  the  father;  German  law,  the  law  of  the  Member  State  of 
origin of the  mother,  or  Finnish law, the Member  State of  residence of  the parents 
and  the  country  where  the  event  took  place?  If  Finland  applied  its  own  law  on 
filiation, would the filiation be recognised in the parents' Member States of origin, in 
this case Sweden and Germany, and in the rest of the EU? Since each Member State 
applies  its  own  rules,  it  could  happen  that  the  German  authorities  would  not 
recognise the filiation determined on the basis of Finnish rules.  

Each Member State determines which law is applicable in a crossborder situation based on the 
connecting  factor  set  out  in  its  private  international  law.  The  connecting  factor  can,  in 
principle,  be  nationality  or  habitual  residence.  The  applicable  law,  thus  determined,  varies 
considerably  from  one  Member  State  to  another.  The  unavoidable  consequence  of  such 
diversity  is  that  a  civil  status  situation  created  in  one  Member  State  is  not  automatically 
recognised  in  another  because  the  result  of  the  applicable  law  differs  depending  on  the 
Member State in question.  

The question is whether there is a need for EU action to provide Europeans with greater legal 
certainty in relation to civil status matters and to remove the obstacles which they face when 
asking  for  a  legal  situation  created  in  one  Member  State  to  be  recognised  in  another.  Such 
recognition is requested in order to benefit from the civil rights connected with the situation in 
the Member State of residence.  

24 

25 

Case  C-168/91  Christos  Konstantinidis  1993,  ECR  [1993]  I  -  01191;  Case  C-148/02  Carlos  Garcia 
Avello  C-48/02,  [2003]  ECR  I-16613;  Case  C-353/06  Grunkin-Paul,  [2008]  ECR  I-07639,  Case C-
208/09 Ilonka Sayn Wittgenstein C-208/09, pending at the CJEU. 
Case  C-353/06,  cited  above,  paragraphs  22,  23,  25  and  27  and  Case  C-148/02,  cited  above, 
paragraph 36. 

EN 

   EN 

 
                                                 
4.2. 

Legal framework  

Civil  status  questions  are  not  new  to  the  European  legislator,  who  has  conferred  a  series  of 
rights  on  European  citizens  in  primary  and  secondary  law.  The  EU  has  already  dealt  with 
issues  relating  to  civil  status,  in  particular  marriage.  Article  21(2)  of  the  abovementioned 
Regulation  (EC)  No 2201/2003  states  that  "no  special  procedure  shall  be  required  for 
updating  the  civil-status  records  of  a  Member  State  on  the  basis  of  a  judgment  relating  to 
divorce,  legal  separation  or  marriage  annulment  given  in  another  Member  State".  However, 
secondary law measures by the EU have to date remained very specific and there are no rules 
yet  on  recognition  by  a  Member  State  of  civil  status-related  situations  created  in  another 
Member State.  

There  are  international  conventions  that  enable  civil  status  questions  to  be  solved  in 
crossborder  situations,  mainly  the  CIEC  Conventions,  the  aim  of  which  is  to  introduce 
uniform  rules  on  conflicts  of  laws  connected  with  people's  rights26.  However,  these 
Conventions are generally ratified by only a small number of countries, usually not more than 
ten. This contributes to the fragmentation in legal terms of the rules applicable in crossborder 
situations. In addition, the EU Member States which are also members of the CIEC are not all 
parties  to  all  of  this  organisation's  conventions.  Not  a  single  CIEC  convention  has  been 
ratified by all EU Member States which are also members of the CIEC.  

4.3. 

Possible solutions for recognition of the effects of civil status records  

Several  solutions  could  be  considered  to  ensure  recognition  of  the  effects  of  a  civil  status 
record or legal situation connected with civil status created in a Member State other than the 
one in which it is invoked.  

In  this  context,  it  is  important  to  stress  that  the  EU  has  no  competence  to  intervene  in  the 
substantive family law of Member States. Therefore, the Commission has neither the power 
nor  the  intention  to  propose  the  drafting  of  substantive  European  rules  on,  for  instance,  the 
attribution  of  surnames  in  the  case  of  adoption  and  marriage  or  to  modify  the  national 
definition of marriage. The Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union does not provide 
any legal base for applying such a solution. 

Against  this  background,  several  practical  problems  arising  in  the  daily  lives  of  citizens  in 
cross-border situations could be solved by facilitating recognition of the effects of civil status 
records legally established in other EU Member States. The European Union has three policy 
options  to  deal  with  these  problems:  assisting  national  authorities  in  the  quest  for  practical 
solutions;  automatic  recognition  and  recognition  based  on  the  harmonisation  of  conflict-of-
law rules.  

a) Assisting national authorities in the quest for practical solutions 

It  can  be  argued  that  the  problems  faced  by  citizens  in  their  daily  lives  with  regard  to  their 
civil  status  in  cross-border  situations  are  matters  best  left  to  the  Member  States,  as  national 
authorities can identify practical solutions within the parameters of their national law. Until, 

26 

See Convention No 12 on the legitimation of natural children by marriage, Convention No 18 on the 
voluntary recognition of children born out of wedlock and Convention No 19 on the law applicable to 
names and surnames. Convention No 7 to facilitate the celebration of marriages abroad also contains a 
conflict-of-law rule on prior notices for marriage.  

EN 

   EN 

 
                                                 
for  example,  there  is  further  harmonisation of the rules on the  law applicable to civil  status 
situations, or until there is greater convergence of Member States' substantive family law, the 
EU's primary role would be to help national authorities to cooperate more effectively. 

Question 7 Do you think that civil status issues for citizens in cross-border situations 
in  the  EU  could  be  effectively  solved  by  national  authorities  alone?  In  this  case, 
should not the EU institutions provide at least some guidance to national authorities 
(possibly  in  the  form  of  EU  recommendations)  to  ensure  minimum  consistency  of 
approaches  with  a  view  to  finding  practical  solutions  to  the  problems  faced  by 
citizens? 

b) Automatic recognition  

Another  option  is  automatic  recognition,  in  a  Member  State,  of  civil  status  situations 
established in other Member States. Such recognition would not involve the harmonisation of 
existing rules and would leave Member States' legal systems unchanged.  

This would mean that each Member State would accept and recognise, on the basis of mutual 
trust,  the  effects  of  a  legal  situation  created  in  another  Member  State.  In  the  examples 
mentioned above, the child's name and the filiation should be recognised by the authorities of 
the Member State of origin of that child, even if the application of that State's law would have 
resulted in a different solution.  

Ensuring  automatic  recognition  throughout  the  EU  of  a  legal  situation  created  in  a 
Member State would involve a number of advantages for European citizens.  

First  of  all,  this  solution  would  be  simple  and  transparent  with  respect  to  all  citizens 
exercising  their  right  of  freedom  of  movement  throughout  the  European  Union.  All  citizens 
whose civil status changes or is affected by a civil status situation created in a Member State 
would know in advance that their civil status need not be questioned if they crossed a border 
or decided, for instance, to spend several years in a Member State other than the one of origin. 
The permanent nature of their civil status would be guaranteed and the situation created in the 
Member State of origin would be recognised automatically in the other Member States on the 
basis of the Treaty.  

In  ensuring  automatic  recognition  of  a  legal  situation  created  in  another  Member  State,  the 
host Member State (in other words, the one which the citizen decides to go and live or work 
in) would not have to change its substantive law or modify its legal system.  

This recognition would also have the advantage of providing the legal certainty which citizens 
can expect when they exercise their right to freedom of movement. It can be argued that legal 
uncertainty and the various problems a citizen could encounter in terms of recognition of the 
legal  situation  established  in  the  Member  State  the  citizen  is  leaving  should  not  act  as  a 
disincentive or constitute an obstacle preventing the exercise of European citizens' rights.  

In  this  case,  this  possibility  should,  however,  be  accompanied  by  a  series  of  compensatory 
measures to prevent potential fraud and abuse and take due account of the public order rules 
of  the  Member  States.  Moreover,  automatic  recognition  might,  where  appropriate,  be  better 
suited  to  certain  civil  status  situations  such  as  the  attribution  or  change  of  surnames.  This 
might prove to be more complicated in other civil status situations such as marriage. 

EN 

   EN 

 
Question  8  What  do  you  think  of  automatic  recognition?  To  which  civil  status 
situations might this solution be applied? In which civil status situations might it be 
considered unsuitable? 

c) Recognition based on the harmonisation of conflict-of-law rules 

Harmonisation of the conflict-of-law rules might be another possible way of allowing citizens 
to exercise fully their right to freedom of movement while providing them with greater legal 
certainty in relation to civil status situations created in another Member State. 

A body of common  rules developed in the European Union would enshrine the  right which 
would be applicable to a crossborder situation when a civil status event takes place. 

This right would be defined on the basis of one or more connecting factors taking into account 
citizen  mobility.  The  rules  would  thus  be  foreseeable  and  known  in  advance.  For  instance, 
citizens living in a Member State other than their Member State of origin could have the law 
of this country, to which they have developed ties, applied to them rather than the law of their 
Member State of origin, which they had perhaps left many years before. 

Moreover,  it  would  have  to  be  decided  whether  the  connecting  factor  chosen  should  be  the 
same for several civil status situations or whether different factors would be more appropriate 
depending on each situation. 

Question  9  What  do  you  think  of  recognition  based  on  the  harmonisation  of 
conflict-of-law rules? To which civil status situations might this solution be applied?  

Determination of the applicable law on the basis of one or more connecting factors laid down 
in European legislation might be the approach taken if no choice is expressed by citizens. In 
principle, citizens in crossborder situations might be allowed to choose the law applicable to a 
civil  status  event.  This  possibility  could  satisfy  the  legitimate  interests  of  citizens  who,  in 
making this choice, would express their attachment to their own culture and Member State of 
origin  or  to  another  Member  State.  Making  such  a  choice  would  also  allow  individual 
freedom  to  be  taken  into  account  in  relation  to  civil  status  matters  where  this  does  not 
undermine the interests of a third party and does not infringe public order. This freedom of 
choice would be regulated, however, and would have to lead to the application of a law with 
which the citizen has close links. 

Question 10 What do you think of the possibility of citizens choosing the applicable law? In 
which civil status situations might such a choice be applied? 

Question 11 In addition to automatic recognition and recognition based on the harmonisation 
of  conflict-of-law  rules,  do  you  think  that  there  are  other  solutions  which  could  provide  a 
response to the crossborder effects of legal situations linked to civil status? 

5. 

CONCLUSION 

This Green Paper is intended to launch a public consultation in order to gather guidelines and 
opinions from the players concerned on ways of improving the lives of citizens in terms of the 
movement of public documents and the application of the principle of mutual recognition in 
relation to civil status matters. 

EN 

   EN 

 
It will be published on the Commission's website. 

The consultation will take place from 14 December 2010 to 30 April 2011. The Commission 
asks interested parties to send their contributions to the following address: 

European Commission 
Directorate-General for Justice 
Unit A1 - Judicial Cooperation in Civil Matters 
B-1049 Brussels 
Fax No: + 32-2/299 64.57 

E-mail: JUST-COOP-JUDICIAIRE-CIVILE@ec.europa.eu  

All  public  and  private  sector  contributions  will  be  published  on  the  Commission's  website 
unless  the  authors  object  explicitly  to  publication  of  their  personal  data  on  the  grounds  that 
such publication would harm their legitimate interests.  

The Commission might hold a public hearing on the issues covered by the Green Paper. 

EN 

   EN